carcano91 Posted 14 August 2005:

quote:

Rearward gas escape. It lead to an expansion of the locking area of the barrel, and parallel to a deformation and destruction of the umbrella locking fingers of the bolt. Bolt thus was released backward.

carcano91 Posted 15 August 2005:

quote:

The pressure "as such" is not - repeat NOT, repeat *N*O*T* - the problem. That is the trick which Blaser uses to lull the gullible.

The pressure can cause problems (notably, rearward gas escape if the cartridge case fails). That is where the trouble begins. Against rearward force as such, the bolt is definitely sturdy enough - that's how Blaser tries to weasel around admitting what is wrong. A cheap and low sham.

carcano91 Posted 16 August 2005 (in response to reasonable and inoffensive questions by New Member "geese"):

quote:

Not so. You get minus 20 points for a purposeful misleading and dishonest question, Blaser-style.

quote:

You are truly dishonest. For how *stupid* do you take the readers of thios forum to be ?

Clearly, case failure, rearward gas escape, expansion of the locking area and deformation of the umbrella locking fingers of the bolt (which can only be due to enormous pressures -- probably due to faulty reloads, chambering of a factory cartridge of improper caliber, a barrel obstruction, whatever...) forces the bolt backwards.

Yet, pressure is not the problem, the blaser company is guilty of weaseling and a low sham, and anyone who disagrees with carcano is gullible and or dishonest. I believe "clueless" was earlier applied to NE 450 No2 by carcano earlier in the discussion.

Carcano, your parsing of words, tortuous logic, and name calling make you sound like a Clinton pondering the definition of "is". Your example is the best reason yet for buying a Blaser R 93.

Cheers

Carcano91,

I think Geese's questions were honest ones, not baiting questions.

I think what you are saying is that there is a design flaw in the Blaser, and it exhibits the flaw when gas escapes. In some cases it's due to overpressure, but in other cases it occurs while folks are using factory rounds. Plus, all actions should be designed so that mechanical failure occurs in a way that won't hurt or kill the shooter, and the Blaser isn't. Is this more or less right?

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by skl1:
I think what you are saying is that there is a design flaw in the Blaser, and it exhibits the flaw when gas escapes. In some cases it's due to overpressure, but in other cases it occurs while folks are using factory rounds. Plus, all actions should be designed so that mechanical failure occurs in a way that won't hurt or kill the shooter, and the Blaser isn't. Is this more or less right?

Hello Steve: very correctly rendered indeed. Thanks.

In all of the accidents cases so far, it seems to have been very high pressure that has effectuated the rearward gas escape. The high pressure as such is only the primary cause for the accident, but not for the resulting damage. The gas escape handling is problem, not the resilience of the locking system against axial force.

There have not been any proven materials flaws in the barrel steel nor in the bolt. Mostly, this has happened with magnum cartridges (factory rounds and reloads), but at least one accident is reported with a 7x64.

Nevertheless, with most non-magnum cartridges, the gas volume will not be sufficient to create enough damage to release the bolt into the shooters face, at least not with new metal bolt cover. With the magnums, it is different.

And yes, I call this a design flaw. It has been a bit attended to, but not remedied.

Carcano

I bought my Blaser before any of these accidents were reported, and get very concerned when I hear about design flaws of the R 93. I have repeatedly checked into the so-called *tons* of information out there. The following is from Lutz Moeller's site at deportivo.com/english:


"In a series of tests through DEVA (Deutsche Versuchs- und Prüfanstalt für Jagd- und Sportwaffen e.V.) measurements of the gas pressure were increased to almost 8.000 bar /
116.000 psi, whereby under this pressure there were no measured deformations to the outer contour of the chamber area in the barrel. There were also no seen deformations to the bolt head.

Without wanting to anticipate the results from the public prosecutors office and after examination we have concluded clearly the damage was caused through extreme overloaded gas pressure.
With consideration to the above mentioned DEVA examination, it is our opinion that the cause of this accident is without doubt due to the ammunition and cannot be related to the rifle."

The other sites listed earlier in this discussion that "detail" Blaser R 93 accidents aren't in English with a translation option, and Jim Shockey's site only says that accidents have been reported. Nearly all of what I've found pertains to the Blaser recall several years ago when a few R 93 trigger assemblies were made with a blued steel pin (which could possibly corrode and cause the rifle to fire when the manual cocker was activated) instead of a pin made of stainless steel.

I called SigArms, was sent postage-paid packing materials, sent my rifle off, and got my R 93 back in a little more than a week (it already had the stainless pin) plus an extended warranty. No big deal. It would have been irresponsible for Blaser not to have issued the recall and they handled the situation honestly and efficiently.

DEVA has shown that there are no measurable deformations to the R 93 chamber area or bolt head at pressures to 116,000 psi and no matter how you want to parse the language, the reported "blow-ups" deal with overpressures. How many other rifles, could withstand these extreme pressure overloads? Until I decide to chamber grenades or shoot with an obstructed barrel, I'll stay with my Blaser R 93.

Cheers.

The only people who insist that any implement must be idiot proof are idiots themselves.

The attorney general of Massachusetts is an idiot who insists that all handguns sold in the commonwealth be idiot proof. As an example, he will not permit a Colt SAA manufactured after, or not owned in the commonwealth before, October of 1998 to be sold in the commonwealth. Why? Because they are "unsafe" and not "grandfathered" according to his idiotic regulations.

They are unsafe only in the hands of the ignorant, the stupid and incompetent. The standard of the lowest common denominator should never be the standard for us all.

This kind of policy gives rise to everything from pointless gun prohibitions to the asinine warning labels on the lids of fast-food coffee cups.

Indeed.


Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by RuarkReader:
the reported "blow-ups" deal with overpressures.

Exactly true.

quote:

How many other rifles, could withstand these extreme pressure overloads?

Once again, you seem to take your fellow readers for gullible idiots, offering them such a non-sequitur.

quote:

Until I decide to chamber grenades or shoot with an obstructed barrel,

Factory ammo can suffice to send the bolt through your head. It did so. Not that it would do any damage on its way though - in your case.

Carcano

carcano91, I was under the impression that at least one of the blowups with the R93 was caused by an incorrectly loaded 300 mag factory round, which lead to a secondary explosive effect (SEE). Several of these occur each year, usually due to reloads. I have heard of one other in NZ, where the BBl split (don't know of the caliber).
This subject does seem to polarise people almost as much as the political forum.
R93s, people seem to either love them or hate them. Not much middle ground.

Cheers, Dave.
Non Illegitium Carborundum

quote:

Originally posted by Sambar 9.3:
carcano91, I was under the impression that at least one of the blowups with the R93 was caused by an incorrectly loaded 300 mag factory round, which lead to a secondary explosive effect (SEE). Several of these occur each year, usually due to reloads. I have heard of one other in NZ, where the BBl split (don't know of the caliber).

Your impressions are quite correct indeed. The NZ case also shows that the R93 has quite a sturdy locking system, as long (AND ONLY AS LONG) it is not subjected to major rearward gas escape.

And here lies the construction's problem, which dishonest tricksters as RuarkReader try to conjure away, instead of acknowledging it soberly, and *then* dealing with it.

Carcano

Okay...

At the risk of being called clueless, gullible, dishonest, a trickster or some other insult by one of this thread's participants, I'll follow the discussion a bit further.

Given the Blaser R93's locking system can withstand pressures up to 116,000 psi:

How does the rearward escape of gas (without exerting pressue) deform the locking fingers of the collet and how does the pressure testing by DEVA not simulate or measure this axial force?

Cheers.

Or we could ask about the SHR rifle which disintergrated on a factory load, here in OZ?
Anyone know anymore of the details?

Cheers, Dave.
Non Illegitium Carborundum.

Dave,

I have an SHR 970. Can you provide some more information on the failure you speak of? Thanks.